I want to also add that with what I have found so far Palin should have never made the statement about rejecting the money like she did at the convention. Because I have yet to find anything to back up that claim. She did kill the bridge project but still took the money.

My facts are straight as an arrow. Sarah's not being honest about her record.

:sleep: :sleep: :sleep:

No sir. You have repeated posted that the feds killed the project and told the state to pay for it themselves. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. How about you post the facts and your stance may be taken serious.

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/

 

It's hard to take anyone seriously, when they feel the need to type in huge red letters in every post....

It's hard to take anyone seriously, when they feel the need to type in huge red letters in every post....

 

So you ignore the facts due to type size? hummmmmmm

So you ignore the facts due to type size? hummmmmmm

 

Show me where I said that?

 

I'll be waiting...

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste sets the record straight about the Bridge to Nowhere. Sarah Palin killed the project - not Congress. Palin chose not to include any money in the budget for the bridge.

 

The Bridge to Nowhere was first funded in August 2005 through the 2005 SAFETEA-LU Act through a $223 million earmark inserted by then-House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska). In October, 2005, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) offered an amendment to the fiscal 2006 Transportation Appropriations Act to transfer $75 million in funding for the Bridge to Nowhere, along with money for the Knik Arm Bridge in Alaska, to support the rebuilding of the Twin Spans Bridge in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. His amendment was defeated by a vote of 15-82. Senators Biden (D-Del.) and Obama (D-Ill.) voted against the amendment; Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) was not present for the vote.

 

In November, 2005, Congress included language in the final version of the fiscal 2006 Transportation Appropriations Act that allowed the state of Alaska to either spend money on the two bridges or on other surface transportation projects. In October, 2006, Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski included $91 million for the Gravina Island Bridge in his budget submission for fiscal year 2007. As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin expressed a mixture of support and doubt about the bridge, particularly about how the project would be funded. As governor, she submitted her budget on January 17, 2007 without any money for the bridge. On July 17, 2007, the Associated Press reported that “The state of Alaska on Friday officially abandoned the ‘bridge to nowhere’ project that became a nationwide symbol of federal pork-barrel spending.” Governor Palin said in a statement that “Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer.” - CCAGW: BRIDGING THE KNOWLEDGE GAP ON THE “BRIDGE TO NOWHERE”

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste sets the record straight about the Bridge to Nowhere. Sarah Palin killed the project - not Congress. Palin chose not to include any money in the budget for the bridge.

 

That's very good, but did she not still accept the Federal funds and use them elsewhere?

 

Like I said in another post, I hate pork, but better anywhere or anything than this bridge.

That's very good, but did she not still accept the Federal funds and use them elsewhere?

 

Like I said in another post, I hate pork, but better anywhere or anything than this bridge.

Palin made the right decision in killing the bridge project but there have been bigger boondoggles that have received much less opposition. For example, the final cost of Boston's Big Dig is estimated at $22 billion, including around $4 billion in federal earmarks. The original project estimate was $1 billion.

 

The proposed bridge would have connected the airport on Gravina Island (which is 21 miles long and 9.5 miles wide) to Ketchikan, Alaska's fifth largest city. While it is true that Gravina Island has a population of only 50 residents, the bridge would have undoubtedly led to commercial and residential development on both the island and the mainland. (I am not familiar with the geography around Ketchikan, but I assume that the airport would not have been build on the island if there had been a reasonable alternative.)

 

Because the federal government has retained ownership of so much of Alaska and because the state is double the size of Texas, it is not surprising that the state has received a disproportionate amount of federal funding in relation to its population. For example, Juneau has no roads connecting it to the outside world and it contains approximately 30,000 people in an area roughly the size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined.

 

Sarah Palin is being criticized for shuffling spending priorities, killing an unpopular project, and reducing the state's earmark requests. Where were the critics when Democratic Senators and House members and governors of both parties were supporting the biggest boondoggle in US history in Boston?

 

In a poll taken in April, 2007, 71% of Alaskans opposed the Gravina Island Bridge, including 75% of Ketchikan residents. Palin made the right call on the bridge and she is not overstating her role in killing the project.

 

Palin's decision had little or nothing to do with the unpopularity of the project in the Lower 48. Palin's decision was made in response to the overwhelming opposition to the project among Alaskans and among those who would be most affected by the bridge. Isn't that what responsible elected represenatatives are supposed to do?

 

(Former Governor Murkowski's family owns property on Gravina Island.)

If I offered one of my children $1,000 to help by a car and they took the $1,000 and bought a television, would any reasonable person describe that as "I said thanks, but no thanks to money for a car"? Sarah Palin's description of the bridge funding as "thanks but no thanks" is disengenuous at best and is much closer to an outright lie.

If I offered one of my children $1,000 to help by a car and they took the $1,000 and bought a television, would any reasonable person describe that as "I said thanks, but no thanks to money for a car"? Sarah Palin's description of the bridge funding as "thanks but no thanks" is disengenuous at best and is much closer to an outright lie.

What if the choice is between a $1,000 pet rock and $1,000 medical bill?

 

All I am saying is that A) anything better than that bridge; B) Sarah Palin truly was the one who killed the project; and C) (and this may be my bias) I am beginning to become convinced that Alaska, and this is from someone who hates pork spending, needs/deserves the money more that other states, for a combination of reasons

What if the choice is between a $1,000 pet rock and $1,000 medical bill?

 

That's a MUCH better analogy, cch! :thumb:

 

(Former Governor Murkowski's family owns property on Gravina Island.)

 

Now THAT revelation begins to make things clear on why the bridge was proposed in the first place.

Palin made the right decision in killing the bridge project but there have been bigger boondoggles that have received much less opposition. For example, the final cost of Boston's Big Dig is estimated at $22 billion, including around $4 billion in federal earmarks. The original project estimate was $1 billion.

 

The proposed bridge would have connected the airport on Gravina Island (which is 21 miles long and 9.5 miles wide) to Ketchikan, Alaska's fifth largest city. While it is true that Gravina Island has a population of only 50 residents, the bridge would have undoubtedly led to commercial and residential development on both the island and the mainland. (I am not familiar with the geography around Ketchikan, but I assume that the airport would not have been build on the island if there had been a reasonable alternative.)

 

Because the federal government has retained ownership of so much of Alaska and because the state is double the size of Texas, it is not surprising that the state has received a disproportionate amount of federal funding in relation to its population. For example, Juneau has no roads connecting it to the outside world and it contains approximately 30,000 people in an area roughly the size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined.

 

Sarah Palin is being criticized for shuffling spending priorities, killing an unpopular project, and reducing the state's earmark requests. Where were the critics when Democratic Senators and House members and governors of both parties were supporting the biggest boondoggle in US history in Boston?

 

In a poll taken in April, 2007, 71% of Alaskans opposed the Gravina Island Bridge, including 75% of Ketchikan residents. Palin made the right call on the bridge and she is not overstating her role in killing the project.

 

Palin's decision had little or nothing to do with the unpopularity of the project in the Lower 48. Palin's decision was made in response to the overwhelming opposition to the project among Alaskans and among those who would be most affected by the bridge. Isn't that what responsible elected represenatatives are supposed to do?

 

(Former Governor Murkowski's family owns property on Gravina Island.)

 

 

Sarah Palin has dishonestly and repeatedly overstated her role in killing the project because she was all for it until it became the most well known example of wasteful government spending since the $500 hammer. Her folksy speechspeek is a completely misleading account, implying that she turned it down as soon as the funding was offered. She didn't. She was all too happy to take the money until Congress killed the bridge earmark. Then, she kept the money and used it for other purposes. She certainly didn't say, "Thanks, but no thanks". Her speech line is blatantly dishonest.

Sarah Palin has dishonestly and repeatedly overstated her role in killing the project because she was all for it until it became the most well known example of wasteful government spending since the $500 hammer. Her folksy speechspeek is a completely misleading account, implying that she turned it down as soon as the funding was offered. She didn't. She was all too happy to take the money until Congress killed the bridge earmark. Then, she kept the money and used it for other purposes. She certainly didn't say, "Thanks, but no thanks". Her speech line is blatantly dishonest.

It does not matter how many times that you say Sarah Palin lied on this issue, it will not make it true. Conversely, liberals can say Barack Obama did not lie about his opposition to the Induced Infant Liability Act and it will not change the truth.

 

The money for the bridge was available for the bridge when Palin took office. She killed the project. That is the simple truth of the matter.

It does not matter how many times that you say Sarah Palin lied on this issue, it will not make it true. Conversely, liberals can say Barack Obama did not lie about his opposition to the Induced Infant Liability Act and it will not change the truth.

 

The money for the bridge was available for the bridge when Palin took office. She killed the project. That is the simple truth of the matter.

 

 

Aw baloney. She was for this wasteful project until Congress pulled the earmark for bridge construction. Then, she took the money and used it for other purposes (she certainly didn't give it back, as her speech line implies). $25 million of the federal funding was, in fact, used to build a road on the island to the place where the bridge would have ended, so even though Sarah didn't get her "bridge to nowhere", she did get a road to nowhere. When asked about the bridge project in late 2006, here is what she had to say:

 

“We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,”

 

“The window is now while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist,”

 

Does that sound consistent with her (untruthful) statements that she told Congress "thanks, but no thanks"?

 

Here's a photo of bridge-to-nowhere supporter Palin mocking characterizations of Gravina Island as "Nowhere, Alaska":

Aw baloney. She was for this wasteful project until Congress pulled the earmark for bridge construction. Then, she took the money and used it for other purposes (she certainly didn't give it back, as her speech line implies). $25 million of the federal funding was, in fact, used to build a road on the island to the place where the bridge would have ended, so even though Sarah didn't get her "bridge to nowhere", she did get a road to nowhere. When asked about the bridge project in late 2006, here is what she had to say:

 

 

 

Does that sound consistent with her (untruthful) statements that she told Congress "thanks, but no thanks"?

 

Here's a photo of bridge-to-nowhere supporter Palin mocking characterizations of Gravina Island as "Nowhere, Alaska":

 

I am going to try to swallow my partisan instincts and say that Palin messed up one this one.